On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 20:37, Johannes S <johannes.sto...@googlemail.com> wrote: > In my opinion we should use 'unsigned' data types here for the ioctl > request in the ioctl wrappers or would you prefer to keep the ioctl > wrapper definition as is today? What is you opinion?
I think I would vote for following the type used by the ioctl() function as declared in the headers for both Linux and the BSDs, and using 'unsigned long'. (We should change KVMState::irq_set_ioctl too, to match.) -- PMM
